Live Blogging: Notes from the Kansas Corporation Commission’s open meeting on smart meters
May 12, 2008
Location: Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) building, west Topeka, horribly windy day
Issue: Open KCC meeting on smart metering technologies, presentation by Elster Group
Participants: KCC commissioners (Chairman Thomas Wright, Commissioner Joe Harkins, Commissioner Michael Moffet), KCC staff, various utility representatives, and members of the public (which I think was represented mostly by the Citizens’ Utility Ratepayers Board (CURB) and CEP)
Summary: The KCC often invites outside presenters to discuss energy topics. Today Elster presented on their AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) technology, which the rest of us usually refer to as smart metering.
******************************************
Yep, we’re back. This CEP broadcast wasn’t “live” live, for two major reasons: (1) KCC meetings are usually fairly small, and me typing frantically on a keyboard is not really helpful for the ambiance, (2) I also forgot to get the guest wireless password for the KCC building ahead of time.
As some of you know, the KCC has a major energy efficiency docket coming up on its schedule this summer – they are considering implementing a form of decoupling.
Decoupling is when utilities are allowed to break the link between their profits and their customers’ consumption – in a world where we need to save energy, this rate structure just doesn’t work anymore. Instead, decoupling allows utilities to recover the costs of energy efficiency, conservation, etc. It sets up a rate structure where utilities can make money by helping consumers save energy.
Smart metering is one of many technologies that can help with energy saving programs. Thus your KCC commissioners wanted to learn more about it (So I imagine! I didn’t get a chance to ask.)
Basically, smart meters allow for two-way wireless communication between utilities and customers. This flow of information helps utilities to better manage load and customers to better manage consumption. The result is saving energy, which is good for the environment.
Smart meter technologies are just now starting to be deployed on a large scale in the U.S. One major pilot project now going in is Xcel Energy’s work in Boulder, CO.
Smart meters will someday be a key ingredient of smart grid technology – where energy production and consumption information flowing freely over the entire electric grid, not just within one utility’s service territory. One benefit of smart grids is that they are better able to handle the intermittent power of renewables energies such as wind and solar.
******************************
In terms of engineering, the Elster presentation was way over CEP’s head. Instead, I focused on what consumers might find interesting about smart meters.
First, how do they work? A smart meter is basically a radio frequency based communications unit that is integrated with a normal “dumb” meter (if you will). It replaces the meter that is now on your house.
A smart meter tracks your power usage and sends the information to your utility, so the utility knows when and how to generate power. The smart meter also tracks your utility’s load and pricing information and sends it back to you, so you know when and how you can save money by using less power.
Right now, this sort of real time pricing is only available to large industrial customers. Smart meters help make this option possible for residential and small commercial customers as well.
Smart meters can transfer this information in hourly intervals, or even in close to real time. Some versions can also offer you complete breakdowns of your daily and monthly usage.
Like TVs, smart meters come from basic to fancy, with different options for upgrades. With some smart meters, customers would have the option to sign up for additional monitoring options – for example, you give the utility authority to raise or lower your thermostat by four degrees.
Research and Resources: DOE study shows that 20% of nation’s wind power could come from wind by 2030
May 12, 2008
It seems fitting to be writing this on a day when the wind gusts are hitting around 40 mph.
Today the Department of Energy released a report concluding that by 2030, wind power could provide up to 20% of the nation’s electrical needs. (For press release, click here)
For comparison, that’s about as much electricity as we get from nuclear power today. Increasing the nation’s wind capacity would also save carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generated from fossil fuels – by 2030, wind power could help avert 7.6 cumulative gigatons of CO2 emissions. In 2030 and every year thereafter, this wind capacity would save 825 million metric tons of CO2 emissions.
How can this ramp-up occur? DOE set some important requirements for meeting the 20% by 2030 goal – “enhanced transmission infrastructure, streamlined siting and permitting regimes, improved reliability and operability of wind systems, and increased U.S. wind manufacturing capacity.” Quotable:
- Annual installations need to increase more than threefold. Achieving 20 percent wind will require the number of annual turbine installations to increase from approximately 2000 in 2006 to almost 7000 in 2017.
- Costs of integrating intermittent wind power into the grid are modest. 20 percent wind can be reliably integrated into the grid for less than 0.5 cents per kWh.
- No material constraints currently exist. Although demand for copper, fiberglass and other raw materials will increase, achieving 20 percent wind is not limited by the availability of raw materials.
- Transmission challenges need to be addressed. Issues related to siting and cost allocation of new transmission lines to access the Nation’s best wind resources will need to be resolved in order to achieve 20 percent wind.
Now, will EPA next come out with a report on the environmental impacts of such a colossal increase? (That’s kind of a rhetorical question. My guess is that they probably won’t.)
The construction of both wind turbines and transmission lines do have impacts on habitat, wildlife, and even water quality as a result of run-off from turbine base construction. As CEP is so fond of saying, all technologies have environmental impacts, and the key is to weigh the benefits and burdens carefully.
However, if you download the actual report (all 248 pages), it does address this topic. Definitely not at length, especially compared to the rest of the material, but the inclusion is promising.
More or less, to sum it up – siting of wind farms really, really, really matters. Kansas communities so far are getting very good at communicating their availability (or not) for wind development – and these decisions so far also seem to involve a mix of environmental and economic factors.
20% by 2030. Holy cow. Hang on!
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: Transmission strategies, Westar makes environmental improvements, Kansans scold legislature, and more
May 12, 2008
Texas started it. We all know the drill. We want more renewable energy brought online. Can’t do that, though, without better transmission lines.
The solution in Texas – within ERCOT, the grid manager for 75% of the state – was to develop Competititive Renewable Energy Zones, or CREZs. The state legislature designated CREZs as priority areas for transmission development. Then wind developers felt they had the security to start planning wind farms.
Now Western Governors Association is borrowing the idea and calling them WREZs. (And no, I can’t guess how to pronounce that acronym). Big difference, though, this means thinking about transmission regionally, not just in terms of a state.
The Midwestern Governors Association Greenhouse Gas Accord has called for something similar
Westar rates could rise due to environmental improvements. Westar is applying to the Kansas Corporation Commission for approval to increase rates to cover the environmental improvements it is making at Jeffrey Energy Center, one of the dirtiest coal-fired units in the nation.
Other improvements will be to the La Cygne, Gordon Evans and Murray Gill plants. The average customer bill will increase from 91 cents to $1.82 per month (Wichita Eagle).
Brownback and the coal plant proposals. According to a staffer, former presidential candidate and Senator Sam Brownback has been working with Sunflower Electric to get the coal plants approved (Pratt Tribune).
Ohio passes a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). According to Pew Climate:
The law mandates that by 2025, at least 25 percent of all electricity sold in the state come from alternative energy resources. At least half of the standard, or 12.5 percent of electricity sold, must be generated by renewable sources such as wind, solar (which must account for at least 0.5 percent of electricity use by 2025), hydropower, geothermal, or biomass. At least half of this renewable energy must be generated in-state.
In addition to renewables, the additional 12.5 percent of the overall 25 percent standard can also be met through alternative energy resources like third-generation nuclear power plants, fuel cells, energy-efficiency programs, and clean coal technology that can control or prevent carbon dioxide emissions.
The bill also creates a renewable energy credit (REC) tracking system, which allows utilities to buy, sell, and trade credits to comply with the renewable energy and solar energy requirements. Additionally, electric utilities will be required to achieve energy savings of 22.5 percent by the end of 2025 through energy efficiency programs. Utilities must also implement programs to reduce peak energy demand one percent beginning in 2009, and an additional .75 percent per year through 2018.
With the enactment of this new legislation, Ohio becomes the 27th state to establish a renewable electricity standard.
Will they remember in November…? Editorial pages across the state are much less than pleased with the Kansas legislature right now. In common, many of them are irked with how much air time the coal plants took up, compared to issues like immigration and health care. (See Manhattan Mercury for one example.)
Big oops! As reported by DeSmogBlog. Climate change denier Dennis Avery and Heartland Institute member had published a list titled “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming.”
However, as Kevin Grandia reports, he “emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list. So far – in less than 24 hours – three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery’s conclusions and demanding that their names be removed.”
